The mediating effect of self‐evaluation bias of competence on the relationship between parental emotional support and children's academic functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well established that children's self-evaluation bias of competence is related to the quality of parent-child emotional relationship. Such biases are linked to children's academic functioning and achievement. Links have also been established between the quality of parent-child emotional relationship and children's academic functioning. No study has yet explored how the effects of children's emotional relationship with their parents and children's self-evaluation bias combine to explain their academic functioning. AIMS: The first goal was to examine whether the quality of parental emotional support reported by both children and parents was related to the children's self-evaluation bias of competence. The second goal was to examine the relationships between children's and parents' reports of emotional support, and children's academic functioning as measured by teachers' report of their motivation, self-regulation of school activities, and academic achievement. The third goal was to determine whether a children's self-evaluation bias mediated the relationship between parental emotional support and academic functioning. SAMPLE: In a 2-year longitudinal design, participants were 524 elementary pupils (grades 4 and 5), one of their parents, and their teachers. RESULTS: Our results indicated that a bias in self-evaluation in the first year of the study mediated the relationship between the quality of parental emotional support assessed at the first year and their school functioning evaluated by their teacher 1 year later. CONCLUSION: The mediational model received clear support when it refers to the emotional support reported by children, but mixed support when reported by parents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".